Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(6): 3886-3893

International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 9 Number 6 (2020) Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com

Review Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.906.458

Screening of Field Bean Genotypes against Major Pod Borers

K.M. Rashmi1, K.N. Muniswamy Gowda2, N. Umashankar Kumar2, B. Tambat2 and L. Vijayakumar1

1College of Agriculture, VC form Mandya, 2College of Agriculture, Karekere, Hassan-573 225, India

*Corresponding author

ABSTRACT

K e yw or ds Among the thirty field bean genotypes screened against pod borers, no Screening, Field single entry was found to be highly resistant and five genotypes were bean, Genotypes, pod borers, Mandya identified as resistant (GL-661, GL-12, GL-418, GL-438 and GL-382).

Article Info Whereas, thirteen genotypes were categorized as moderately resistant.

Susceptible group of field bean cultivars comprised of seven genotypes and Accepted: 30 May 2020 highly susceptible group contained 5 genotypes (HA-3, Local, GL-10, GL- Available Online: 68 and HA -4). 10 Ju ne 2020

Introduction 55 species of and one species of mite feeding on the crop from seedling stage till purpureus (L.) commonly called as the harvest in Karnataka. field bean is one of the ancient leguminous crops cultivated mainly in southern parts of Among sucking pests lablab bug, Coptosoma India. Though the crop is cultivated in almost cribraria (Fabricius), Riptortus pedestris all regions of Karnataka, it is highly grown as (Fabricius) and Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) a mixed crop with finger millet and sorghum occurred commonly in large numbers and to a smaller extent as a pure crop under throughout the cropping period (Govindan, rainfed as well as irrigated conditions. The 1974). The significant crop damage was damage by pests is considered as one of attributed to the pod borer complex including the major drawbacks in achieving the Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), potential yield in field bean. Many number of atkinsoni (Moore), Maruca testulalis (Geyer), pests severely ravage the buds, flowers and Etiella zinckenella (Treitschke), Cydia developing seeds of bean crop resulting in ptychora (Meyrick), Exelastis atomosa crop loss. Govindan (1974) reported around (Walshinghan), caffer (Zeller)

3886

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(6): 3886-3893

and Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus) and During the period of study, incidence of Callosobruchus theobromae (L.) which are of prevalent pod borers were recorded on 5 considerable importance causing 80 per cent randomly tagged plants of each genotype in pod damage (Katagihallimath and Siddappaji, each row from flowering till harvest at 10 1962). The inflorescence is attacked by days interval and cumulative data were several species of borers, of which E. expressed as incidence of insect pests on atomosa, A. atkinsoni and H. armigera have inflorescence and pods. Based on the been considered as major pests. Currently, infestation levels genotypes were selected for spotted borer, M. vitrata is attaining a major further determination of biochemical and pest status on Lablab varieties, blooming parameters of pods. throughout the year. The seed yield loss caused by A. atkinsoni has reported to be At the time of harvest, data on total number of more than 95 per cent (Chakravarthy, 1983) pods and number of damaged pods in five and pod damage, more than 49.43 per cent plants in each genotype was recorded and per (Mallikarjunappa, 1989). cent pod damage was computed by using following formula. By considering the seriousness of damage Percentage pod damage = caused by the pod borers it is felt necessary to find efficient and precise control measures. Total number of damaged pods Since, L. purpureus is a vegetable crop, the ------X 100 eco-friendly suppression methods like the use Total number of pods of resistant varieties and application of need- based pesticides based on information of Further, based on the per cent pod damage insect-pest dynamics should be adopted. inflicted by pod borers, the genotypes were grouped into different categories of resistance Host plant resistance remains the most and susceptibility. The mean and standard effective tool in integrated pest management deviation (SD) of per cent pod damage was which is compatible with other methods of worked out. The classification of genotypes control without any additional cost to growers was done based on mean ± SD as mentioned (Nadeem et al., 2010). Hence the present below (Rudranaik et al., 2009 and research was undertaken to screen field bean Mallikarjuna, 2009). genotypes against major pod borers. Highly resistant: Genotypes with per cent pod Materials and Methods damage less than mean-2(SD).

To evaluate the reaction of field bean Resistant: Genotypes with per cent pod genotypes to pod borer complex, 30 damage between mean-2(SD) and meanSD germplasm including popular variety (HA-4 and HA-3) and local cultivar of field bean Moderately resistant: Genotypes with per cent were sown in Rabi season in October 2017. pod damage between mean-SD and mean. Each genotype was sown in two rows of 2 m length with a row to row spacing of 60 cm Susceptible: Genotypes with per cent pod and plant to plant spacing of 20 cm. All the damage between mean and mean+SD. recommended package of practices was followed to raise the crop except for the plant Highly Susceptible: Genotypes with per cent protection measures. pod damage between mean+SD and mean+2(SD) and above. 3887

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(6): 3886-3893

Results and Discussion Also, Umbarkar et al., (2011) reported that among the ten genotypes of green gram The larval population of major pod borers screened for their reaction to gram pod borer, viz., E. atomosa and H. armigera were H. armigera, GM-2K-5, GM- 9926 and GM- recorded only during Rabi since the 2K-3 harboring less number of larvae per population of A. atkinsoni and M. vitrata were plant were found less susceptible than sparsely distributed. The data on mean genotypes, GM-02-13 and GM-04-04 number of larvae of E. atomosa and H. harboring highest number of larvae per plant. armigera per plant (Table 1 and 2, respectively) indicated that none of the Per cent pod damage inflicted by pod borer genotypes / cultivars was found free from complex in different genotypes of field incidence of the pests. bean during Rabi 2017-18

However, the genotype GL-661 that recorded The harvested pods of different genotypes the lowest larval population of E. atomosa were assessed for the damage caused by pod (0.60 larvae/ plant) was considered to be the borers. Data on per cent pod damage was least susceptible. In addition GL-12 (0.79 estimated in all thirty genotypes of field bean larvae/ plant) and GL-418 (0.81 larvae/ plant) and presented in Table 3. were found at par showing less susceptible reactions. The genotypes HA-4, Local, HA-3, The pod damage caused by pod borers among GL-10, GL-68 and GL-66 with highest larval the cultivars was significant and ranged from population of 2.11, 2.04, 1.98, 1.86, 1.86 and 11.67 per cent to 51.4 per cent. The results 1.86 per plant, respectively were considered showed that GL-661 recorded the least as highly susceptible (Table 1). damage (11.67 %) and was found to be superior over other genotypes. It was Similarly, the genotype GL-661 that recorded followed by GL-12 (14.38 %) and this was on the lowest larval population of H. armigera par with the GL-418 (16.17 %), GL-438 (0.05 larvae/ plant) was considered to be the (17.11 %) and GL-382 (17.99 %). least susceptible. In addition GL12 (0.08 larvae/ plant), GL-418 (0.08 larvae/ plant) and Among other cultivars which recorded less GL-658 (0.09 larvae/ plant) were found at par per cent pod damage was GL-331 (20.67 %) showing less susceptible reactions. The and it was found to be on par with GL-658, genotypes HA-4, GL-68, HA-3, GL10, Local GL-464 and GL-391 these cultivars recorded and GL-66 with highest larval population of pod damage of 22.22, 22.88 and 22.94 per 0.37, 0.32, 0.29, 0.27, 0.26 and 0.25 per plant, cent, respectively. respectively were considered as highly susceptible (Table 2). The higher per cent pod damage was observed in HA-4 (51.4 %) which was on par with GL- The present findings are similar to Halder and 68 (51.02 %). The higher per cent pod Srinivasan (2010) who reported that the damage was also observed in GL10, Local genotypes light brown local, HA-3 and HA-1 and HA-3 with 48.21, 47.91 and 46.83 per harboured highest number of spotted pod cent, respectively. The remaining cultivars borer larvae which were highly susceptible. recorded per cent pod damage ranged from Whereas, the resistant genotypes H-3 UAS 24.84 per cent in GL-336 and 35.53 per cent and GP-5 harbored less number of larvae. in GL-376.

3888

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(6): 3886-3893

Table.1 Incidence of plume , E. atomosa in different genotypes of field bean

Sl. Genotypes Average no. of larvae per plant No. 50 DAS 60 DAS 70 DAS 80 DAS 90 DAS 100 DAS Mean 1 Ha-4 0.30 (0.89) 0.50 (1.00) 0.80 (1.14) 0.40 (0.95) 0.10 (0.77) 0.10 (0.77) 0.37 (0.93) 2 Ha-3 0.30 (0.89) 0.40 (0.95) 0.55 (1.02) 0.40 (0.95) 0.10 (0.77) 0.00 (0.71) 0.29 (0.89) 3 KNR 0.10 (0.77) 0.20 (0.84) 0.30 (0.89) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.00 (0.71) 0.18 (0.82) 4 GL-10 0.10 (0.77) 0.20 (0.84) 0.30 (0.89) 0.50 (1.00) 0.50 (1.00) 0.00 (0.71) 0.27 (0.88) 5 GL-12 0.00 (0.71) 0.00 (0.71) 0.20 (0.84) 0.20 (0.84) 0.10 (0.77) 0.00 (0.71) 0.08 (0.76) 6 GL-66 0.20 (0.84) 0.30 (0.89) 0.50 (1.00) 0.30 (0.89) 0.10 (0.77) 0.10 (0.77) 0.25 (0.87) 7 GL-68 0.20 (0.84) 0.50 (1.00) 0.40 (0.95) 0.50 (1.00) 0.30 (0.89) 0.00 (0.71) 0.32 (0.91) 8 GL-142 0.00 (0.71) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.20 (0.84) 0.00 (0.71) 0.10 (0.77) 0.13 (0.79) 9 GL-199 0.00 (0.71) 0.25 (0.89) 0.15 (0.81) 0.30 (0.89) 0.10 (0.77) 0.00 (0.71) 0.13 (0.79) 10 GL-233 0.00 (0.71) 0.35 (0.92) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.10 (0.77) 0.10 (0.77) 0.18 (0.82) 11 GL-252 0.10 (0.77) 0.00 (0.71) 0.50 (1.00) 0.60 (1.05) 0.00 (0.71) 0.10 (0.77) 0.22 (0.85) 12 GL-331 0.00 (0.71) 0.10 (0.77) 0.25 (0.89) 0.25 (0.89) 0.00 (0.71) 0.20 (0.84) 0.13 (0.79) 13 GL-336 0.00 (0.71) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.40 (0.95) 0.10 (0.77) 0.10 (0.77) 0.18 (0.82) 14 GL-337 0.10 (0.77) 0.10 (0.77) 0.20 (0.84) 0.30 (0.89) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.20 (0.84) 15 GL-360 0.10 (0.77) 0.40 (0.95) 0.30 (0.89) 0.50 (1.00) 0.00 (0.71) 0.00 (0.71) 0.22 (0.85) 16 GL-372 0.10 (0.77) 0.50 (1.00) 0.10 (0.77) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.00 (0.71) 0.20 (0.84) 17 GL-376 0.20 (0.84) 0.35 (0.92) 0.40 (0.95) 0.30 (0.89) 0.00 (0.71) 0.00 (0.71) 0.21 (0.84) 18 GL-382 0.10 (0.77) 0.00 (0.71) 0.20 (0.84) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.00 (0.71) 0.13 (0.79) 19 GL-391 0.10 (0.77) 0.20 (0.84) 0.10 (0.77) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.00 (0.71) 0.15 (0.81) 20 GL-403 0.10 (0.77) 0.30 (0.89) 0.15 (0.81) 0.30 (0.89) 0.30 (0.89) 0.00 (0.71) 0.19 (0.83) 21 GL-412 0.00 (0.71) 0.10 (0.77) 0.20 (0.84) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.00 (0.71) 0.13 (0.79) 22 GL-418 0.10 (0.77) 0.00 (0.71) 0.10 (0.77) 0.20 (0.84) 0.00 (0.71) 0.10 (0.77) 0.08 (0.76) 23 GL-438 0.00 (0.71) 0.10 (0.77) 0.20 (0.84) 0.30 (0.89) 0.00 (0.71) 0.00 (0.71) 0.10 (0.77) 24 GL-464 0.10 (0.77) 0.20 (0.84) 0.10 (0.77) 0.20 (0.84) 0.10 (0.77) 0.00 (0.71) 0.12 (0.79) 25 GL-527 0.10 (0.77) 0.30 (0.89) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.23 (0.85) 26 GL-530 0.10 (0.77) 0.30 (0.89) 0.50 (1.00) 0.40 (0.95) 0.10 (0.77) 0.00 (0.71) 0.23 (0.85) 27 GL-621 0.10 (0.77) 0.35 (0.92) 0.45 (0.97) 0.30 (0.89) 0.10 (0.77) 0.00 (0.71) 0.22 (0.85) 28 GL-658 0.00 (0.71) 0.05 (0.74) 0.10 (0.77) 0.30 (0.89) 0.10 (0.77) 0.00 (0.71) 0.09 (0.77) 29 GL-661 0.00 (0.71) 0.00 (0.71) 0.10 (0.77) 0.20 (0.84) 0.00 (0.71) 0.00 (0.71) 0.05 (0.74) 30 Local 0.20 (0.84) 0.35 (0.92) 0.50 (1.00) 0.30 (0.89) 0.20 (0.84) 0.00 (0.71) 0.26 (0.87) SE m± NS NS NS NS 0.07 NS 0.04 CD @ 5% 0.2 0.12 DAS: Days after sowing; Figures in the parenthesis indicate √x + 0.5 transformed values

3889

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(6): 3886-3893

Table.2 Incidence of H. armigera in different genotypes of field bean

Sl. Genotypes Average no. of larvae per plant No. 50 DAS 60 DAS 70 DAS 80 DAS 90 DAS 100 DAS Mean 1 Ha-4 1.50 (1.41) 2.60 (1.76) 3.00 (1.87) 2.80 (1.82) 1.95 (1.57) 0.80 (1.14) 2.11 (1.62) 2 Ha-3 1.15 (1.28) 2.50 (1.73) 2.30 (1.67) 2.40 (1.70) 2.10 (1.61) 0.70 (1.10) 1.86 (1.54) 3 KNR 0.80 (1.14) 1.90 (1.55) 2.20 (1.64) 2.30 (1.67) 1.70 (1.48) 0.50 (1.00) 1.57 (1.44) 4 GL-10 1.48 (1.41) 2.45 (1.72) 2.00 (1.58) 2.20 (1.64) 2.30 (1.67) 0.70 (1.10) 1.98 (1.57) 5 GL-12 0.15 (0.81) 0.80 (1.14) 1.30 (1.34) 1.40 (1.38) 0.80 (1.14) 0.30 (0.89) 0.79 (1.14) 6 GL-66 1.10 (1.26) 2.40 (1.70) 2.40 (1.70) 2.35 (1.69) 2.30 (1.67) 0.60 (1.05) 1.86 (1.54) 7 GL-68 1.45 (1.40) 2.60 (1.76) 2.40 (1.70) 2.50 (1.73) 2.10 (1.61) 0.80 (1.14) 1.86 (1.54) 8 GL-142 0.70 (1.10) 1.55 (1.43) 1.90 (1.55) 1.90 (1.55) 2.00 (1.58) 0.40 (0.95) 1.41 (1.38) 9 GL-199 0.60 (1.05) 1.40 (1.38) 0.70 (1.10) 0.70 (1.10) 1.80 (1.52) 0.40 (0.95) 1.27 (1.33) 10 GL-233 0.95 (1.20) 2.00 (1.58) 2.20 (1.64) 2.15 (1.63) 2.00 (1.58) 0.55 (1.02) 1.64 (1.46) 11 GL-252 0.70 (1.10) 1.80 (1.52) 1.70 (1.48) 1.60 (1.45) 1.60 (1.45) 0.50 (1.00) 1.32 (1.35) 12 GL-331 0.30 (0.89) 1.20 (1.30) 1.50 (1.41) 1.50 (1.41) 1.20 (1.30) 0.30 (0.89) 1.00 (1.22) 13 GL-336 0.50 (1.00) 1.50 (1.41) 1.60 (1.45) 1.60 (1.45) 1.50 (1.41) 0.40 (0.95) 1.18 (1.30) 14 GL-337 0.85 (1.16) 1.80 (1.52) 2.50 (1.73) 2.50 (1.73) 2.00 (1.58) 0.60 (1.05) 1.71 (1.49) 15 GL-360 0.80 (1.14) 1.90 (1.55) 2.40 (1.70) 2.70 (1.79) 1.80 (1.52) 0.50 (1.00) 1.68 (1.48) 16 GL-372 0.65 (1.07) 1.60 (1.45) 1.50 (1.41) 1.80 (1.52) 1.80 (1.52) 0.45 (0.97) 1.30 (1.34) 17 GL-376 1.10 (1.26) 2.20 (1.64) 2.60 (1.76) 2.40 (1.70) 2.00 (1.58) 0.50 (1.00) 1.80 (1.52) 18 GL-382 0.30 (0.89) 1.35 (1.36) 1.20 (1.30) 1.30 (1.34) 1.20 (1.30) 0.30 (0.89) 0.94 (1.20) 19 GL-391 0.45 (0.97) 1.40 (1.38) 1.50 (1.41) 1.45 (1.40) 1.40 (1.38) 0.40 (0.95) 1.10 (1.26) 20 GL-403 0.80 (1.14) 1.70 (1.48) 1.90 (1.55) 1.80 (1.52) 1.70 (1.48) 0.50 (1.00) 1.40 (1.38) 21 GL-412 0.95 (1.20) 1.90 (1.55) 2.40 (1.70) 2.40 (1.70) 2.45 (1.72) 0.50 (1.00) 1.77 (1.51) 22 GL-418 0.20 (0.84) 0.90 (1.18) 1.30 (1.34) 1.20 (1.30) 0.90 (1.18) 0.35 (0.92) 0.81 (1.14) 23 GL-438 0.30 (0.89) 0.90 (1.18) 1.40 (1.38) 1.35 (1.36) 1.30 (1.34) 0.40 (0.95) 0.94 (1.20) 24 GL-464 0.40 (0.95) 1.30 (1.34) 1.60 (1.45) 1.70 (1.48) 1.30 (1.34) 0.40 (0.95) 1.12 (1.27) 25 GL-527 1.00 (1.22) 2.10 (1.61) 2.30 (1.67) 2.20 (1.64) 1.90 (1.55) 0.50 (1.00) 1.67 (1.47) 26 GL-530 1.05 (1.24) 2.40 (1.70) 2.20 (1.64) 2.10 (1.61) 2.00 (1.58) 0.60 (1.05) 1.73 (1.49) 27 GL-621 1.05 (1.24) 2.20 (1.64) 2.35 (1.69) 2.20 (1.64) 2.00 (1.58) 0.55 (1.02) 1.73 (1.49) 28 GL-658 0.35 (0.92) 1.10 (1.26) 1.35 (1.36) 1.40 (1.38) 1.00 (1.22) 0.35 (0.92) 0.93 (1.20) 29 GL-661 0.10 (0.77) 0.30 (0.89) 1.00 (1.22) 1.20 (1.30) 0.70 (1.10) 0.30 (0.89) 0.60 (1.05) 30 Local 1.25 (1.32) 2.60 (1.76) 2.50 (1.73) 2.60 (1.76) 2.40 (1.70) 0.90 (1.18) 2.04 (1.59) SE m± 0.09 0.13 0.07 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.09 CD @ 5% 0.25 0.38 0.19 0.41 0.21 0.15 0.24 Figures in the parentheses indicate arc sine transformed values.

3890

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(6): 3886-3893

Table.3 Per cent pod damage inflicted by pod borers in different genotypes of field bean

Sl. No Genotypes Pod damage (%) 1 Ha-4 51.4 (45.80) 2 Ha-3 46.83 (43.17) 3 KNR 29.12 (32.65) 4 GL-10 48.21 (43.97) 5 GL-12 14.38 (22.27) 6 GL-66 34.97 (36.25) 7 GL-68 51.02 (45.58) 8 GL-142 26.01 (30.63) 9 GL-199 25.05 (30.03) 10 GL-233 31.13 (33.91) 11 GL-252 26.98 (31.28) 12 GL-331 20.67 (27.04) 13 GL-336 24.84 (29.89) 14 GL-337 29.39 (32.82) 15 GL-360 28.59 (32.31) 16 GL-372 26.89 (31.22) 17 GL-376 35.53 (36.39) 18 GL-382 17.99 (25.09) 19 GL-391 22.94 (28.61) 20 GL-403 27.78 (31.80) 21 GL-412 30.65 (33.61) 22 GL-418 16.17 (23.71) 23 GL-438 17.11 (24.43) 24 GL-464 22.88 (28.57) 25 GL-527 31.34 (34.04) 26 GL-530 33.61 (35.41) 27 GL-621 33.73 (35.50) 28 GL-658 22.22 (28.10) 29 GL-661 11.67 (19.97) 30 Local 47.91 (43.80) SE m± 1.06 CD @ 5% 3.08 Figures in the parentheses indicate arc sine transformed values.

3891

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(6): 3886-3893

Table.4 Scoring of field bean Genotypes based on damage intensity of pod borers

Sl. No. Category Per cent pod damage Genotypes 1 Highly resistant (HR) 0000 - 8.47 ------(Mean-2SD) 2 Resistant (R) 8.48 - 19.01 GL-661, GL-12, GL-418, (Mean-SD) GL438, GL-382 3 Moderately Resistant (MR) 19.02 - 29.55 GL-331, GL-658, GL-464, (Mean) GL391, GL-336, GL-199, GL-142, GL-372, GL-252, GL-403, KNR, GL-360, GL- 337 4 Susceptible (S) 29.56 - 40.10 GL-412, GL-233, GL-527, (Mean+SD) GL530, GL-621, GL-66, GL- 376 5 Highly Susceptible (HS) 40.11 - 57.55 HA-3, Local, GL-10, GL-68, (Mean+2SD) HA-4

The results of present study are comparable Among the thirty field bean genotypes with the findings of Vinod et al., (2011) who screened against pod borers, no single entry reported that per cent pod damage inflicted by was found to be highly resistant. Five pod borers M. vitrata and E. atomosa in field genotypes viz., GL-661, GL-12, GL-418, bean genotypes varied from 9.58 to 89.42 per GL438 and GL-382 were identified as cent. EC-92956 (9.58 %) recorded least resistant falling under the range of 8.48 to damage followed by TFB-110, MAC-7-1 and 19.01per cent pod damage. Thirteen PLS-42 and highest damage was in EC-55059 genotypes (GL-331, GL-658, GL-464, GL- (89.42 %). Sunitha et al., (2007) assessed 84 391, GL-336, GL199, GL-142, GL-372, GL- entries of field bean against pod borers. There 252, GL-403, KNR, GL-360, and GL-337) was significant difference among the 84 recorded mean pod damage in the range of genotypes screened with pod damage ranging 19.02 to 29.55 per cent and was categorized from 18 to 59 per cent. The genotype AVT- as moderately resistant. Susceptible group of FB (SD)-15- 6-4 had suffered highest pod field bean genotypes comprised of seven damage (59.12%), while TCR-137 sustained genotypes (GL 412, GL-233, GL-527, GL- least pod damage of 18.75 per cent. 530, GL-621, GL-66 and GL-376) was found to have per cent pod damage ranging from Categorization of different field bean 29.56-40.10. The cultivars which recorded the genotypes in response to pod borers mean per cent pod damage 40.11 to 57.55 damage were classified under highly susceptible group containing 5 genotypes viz., HA-3, Local, Based on mean per cent pod damage, field GL-10, GL-68 and HA-4. bean genotypes were categorized into five groups i.e. highly resistant, resistant, The present findings are in conformity with moderately resistant, susceptible and highly Rudranaik et al., (2009) who evaluated 68 susceptible according to the reports of germplasm accessions for pod borer reaction Rudranaik et al., (2009) and Mallikarjuna and classified them as resistant, moderately (2009) and presented in Table 4. resistant, moderately susceptible, susceptible

3892

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(6): 3886-3893

and highly susceptible based on per cent pod Bangalore, p.1-34. damaged. Out of 68 accessions, six accessions Halder, J. and Srinivasan, S., 2010. Varietal were rated as highly resistant with least per screening of different field bean genotypes cent pod damage. While, three were rated as against Maruca vitrata (Geyer). Ann. moderately resistant. Whereas, 21 accessions Entomol., 28(2): 77-79. Katagihallimath, S. S. and Siddappaji, C., 1962. were rated as moderately susceptible and Observations on the incidence of remaining accession were rated as susceptible lepidopteran pod borers of Dolichos lablab and highly susceptible. and the results of preliminary insecticidal trails to control them. 2nd All India Mallikarjuna (2009) screened 50 cultivars of Congress of Zoology, pp. 59. field bean against pod borers, and revealed Mallikarjuna, J. 2009. Studies on pod borers of three germplasm lines as highly resistant, Dolichos bean, Lablab purpureas L. (sweet) three lines as resistant, seventeen lines as and their management. M. Sc. (Agri) Thesis, moderately resistant, twenty lines as University of Agricultural Sciences, susceptible and seven lines were proved to be Bangalore, India. highly susceptible. Vinod et al., (2011) also Mallikarjunappa, 1989. Field bean pod borer complex with reference to germplasm screened 40 germplasms of field bean, based screening, life table, action threshold, crop on damage inflicted by the pod borers loss and chemical control of Adisura grouped into 3 categories viz., less atkinsoni. Ph. D. Thesis, University of susceptible, moderately susceptible and Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, p. 1-15. highly susceptible. Rudranaik, V., Bhuvaneshwari, S., Patil, R. K. 2009. Evaluation of field bean germplasm for Acknowledgement their reaction, Adisura atkinsoni Moore. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(3): 653-654. Authors thankful to College of Agriculture, Sunitha, Y., Lakshmi, K. V. and Rao, G.Y. R. VC form, Mandya for providing field and lab 2008. Screening of pigeon pea genotypes facility. Also thank Dr. S. Ramesh, UAS, against Maruca vitrata (Geyer). J. Food legumes, 21(3): 193-195. GKVK, Bangalore for providing seed Umbarkar, P. S., Parsana, G. J. and Jethwa, D. M. material. 2011. Screening of greengram genotypes for resistance against gram pod borer, References Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Leg. Res., 34(1): 71- 72. Govindan, R., 1974. Insects of the field bean, Vinod, P., Sreedevi, K., Muralikrishna, K. and Lablab niger var. lignosus Medikus with Prasanthi.L., 2011. Incidence of pod borers special reference to the biology and ecology in field bean, Lablab purpureus L. in of the pod borer, Adisura atkinsoni Moore unprotected conditions. Curr. Biotica, 5(1): (: ). M. Sc. (Agri.) 64-71. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences,

How to cite this article:

Rashmi, K.M., K.N. Muniswamy Gowda, N. Umashankar Kumar, B. Tambat and Vijayakumar, L. 2020. Screening of Field Bean Genotypes against Major Pod Borers. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 9(06): 3886-3893. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.906.458

3893